Fusion Reaction Power Plant Realities?

tokamaks have already exceeded engineering break even. They are making a prototype now ITER http://www.iter.org/

this is the next stage scale up and the one after that will be a production prototype. figure 10 years for each and we have some hope of seeig them in 30 years

When the truth emerged from the Chinese Tokomak test a couple of months ago, the story seemed to be that hydrogen was successfuly raised to what ordinarily would be fusion temperature, but for some reason it was done without deuterium or tritium, so fusion did not actually occur. There are two forms of plasma heating, at least at the time of the TFTR in Princeton (worked on a proposal for it): plasma compresson from sets of external coils, and ohmic heating.

Is any additional information available on where break-even was reached, or what the motivation for isotope omission in the Chinese experiment was?

Bernie Katz

To try to look even 20 years forward, given the accelerating pace of developement,
is no more than wishful guessing, but OK:

Useful Fusion Power - Mostly no.

Solar - It's here, just too expensive. Check out: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070118/lf_nm/solar_home_dc

I believe you are a bit confused. I seriously doubt if anyone would boost equipment
to electrolyse and then burn hydrogen into orbit. Its a no-win game. Water is as much a 'consumable` as oxygen.

They do use the solar electricity directly.

In perhaps 50 years, what will be used as the primary portable fuel? We must act now to keep atmospheric CO2 content below 350 PPM, or global warming will really be out of control. Fuel used for transportation must contain little or no carbon. Methane contains little carbon, but are we going to continue importing LNG in 50 years?

When fusion power succeeds, the portable fuel of choice will likely be hydogen derived from water electrolysis, which can be stored in metallic hydrides. In the event of an accident, gaseous hydrogen disperses very quickly; danger in that regard is totally unlike gasoline. Certainly, one cannot see a hydrogen flame, but that does not necessarily have anything to do with immolation of those trapped in burning cars.

The only possible exception can be battery development to the point where vehicles of all types may be directly electrically powered. Development in that regard is a slow as fusion development is. Yes, we may have improvements in lithium polymer or other technologies to the point where the average car will travel 200 miles on one charge, but what about powering of trucks and busses?

Bernie Katz

some sort of fuel cell to charge a battery to run the truck with the fuel cell scaled for the average load and the battery for acceleration.

Fuel can be H2 if they solve the production and distribution problems, or it can be an alcohol. These fuels with be produced via fusion electricity as I expect that to be made to wrk in 50 years and also by sun power as I expect solar to be at 75% in 50 years from the current 42% for the best cells.

Solar cells need to be made to use both the light and the heat portion of the solar source to reach 75%. The current 42% onse are light only. You can get 15-20% extra from the heat via a sterling engine and that adds to the light efficiency, so 75% is in range. The use of biomass cellulose via enzyme into alcohol can bypass the inefficiency of yeast(whcih can only make 15% alcohol and then it must be distilled at high energy cost to become a fuel) The enzymes might allow for 50-80%??

The problems with solar power on a large scale include several factors: Solar flux at the equator at high noon is only 1 KW/square meter. At points far north, it is considerably less. During winter in the north, the sun is available for less than half the day, and it is relatively low in the sky. Moreover, clouds, rain and other sun obscuring factors need to be taken into account.

A large fossil fueled generating station can produce 1000 megawatts. That is done in one unit ("big Allis") run by Consolidated Edison in New York. At 75% efficiency at the equator, about 1.4 million square meters of solar cells would be required for the same output, not considering conversion efficency to AC. At 1.61 KM per mile, between half a square mile and almost 1 square mile of solar cells would be required for the same output. That figure is based only upon output available while the sun shines. While not impossible to undertake, a reasonable estimate for points in the northern US and southern Canada would be an area at least 3 to 5 times greater to take into account the lesser solar flux, night darkness, and weather conditions (assumes some storage method for power generation during sunlit hours, efficiency of the same not considered). What happens when the solar array is snow covered? Plowing it is not practical. Maybe high pressure air could be used to blow off the array, but the point is that many factors which do not immediately appear when large scale solar power is considered begin to manifest themselves when details are considered. How would heat be recovered over such a large area to run a bank of Stirling engines? What would costs and payback period be?

Solar energy does have a definite place in the future, but as today, more likely than not it will be in remote areas where electrical energy requirements are relatively low.

Granted, more than likely, vehicles in 50 years will be fuel cell or battery powered. Battery power will add to the electrical loading requirements of today. To make alcohol from cellulose for fuel cell use, we face the question of where all of the required cellulose will come from. If the concentration is only 50% it will still require distillation, at least based upon today's fuel cell technology

Right now, France is at least 80% nuclear (fission) and Japan is probably higher. We could do the same as an intermediate term solution. Pebble bed reactors are inherently safe. Certainly the question of waste storage arises, but fusion will come at some point; the question is when.

Bernie Katz

A large fossil fueled generating station can produce 1000 megawatts. That is done in one unit ("big Allis") run by Consolidated Edison in New York. At 75% efficiency at the equator, about 1.4 million square meters of solar cells would be required for the same output, not considering conversion efficency to AC. At 1.61 KM per mile, between half a square mile and almost 1 square mile of solar cells would be required for the same output

WHat you say it only partly true. We make these generators in 1000 MW siez because plants like this become more efficient with size. Then there are the mules that carry the electrons here and there..

Once you reach 40% (which is there in the lab now) and are able to roll out solar to small roof farms at 40% we will not have the problem of covering large areas. The saving in mules will also be a factor.

So it does not run 24/7, as long as you store it and can use it later the number of mules is reduced or even eliminated.

Far of areas with cheap sunny land will do better at this.

In addition many places can dedicate many large sunny areas to solar arrays. I am thinking of Africa and Australia for starters. I think in about 10 years we will see large solar arrays. We have to wait for some patents to expire so others are allowed into these areas.

I would have thought that what mattered was nett generation of CO2. Wouldn't that make the carbon content of transportation fuel irrelevant - assuming that the carbon content was derived from the atmosphere?

The only limitation would be that the extraction and burning processes do not generate other unacceptable by-products. In this respect, unless I am missing something significant, the idea that hydrogen is essential as a CO2-neutral fuel seems to me to be a non-sequitur.

In the meantime, we need to use whatever fuel contributes least carbon globally. At the present, my understanding is that the losses in converting energy to hydrogen and then transporting it mean that it only makes sense for solar or nuclear energy. I'm by no means an expert here, but it seems conceivable that hybrid systems using a mix of conventional ('dirty') fuels and 'clean' energy to develop a high-energy (non-hydrogen) portable fuel might save more CO2 than the purist approach of totally separating 'clean' and 'dirty' power.

My fear is that local pollution may be confused with the global to the point where we make irrational choices

BTW, isn't there a potential problem with leaking hydrogen that it can develop an explosive mixture before it disperses.

Fyz

Nope, Laserlover

I don't see that fusion reactors will ever be commercially viable. I know that makes me sound like an old stick-in-the-mud. But the reactors are too Rube-Goldberesque* in the way they have to be configured. Kind of a same-old same old development by the fission guys. The research is lovely, but the physical reality is Neanderthal.

I do think, however, that cold fusion will be a realistic form of major electricity generation once they iron the bugs out of manufacturing pure catalyst materials.

Mark.

*Rub Goldberg was a cartoonist who designed long weird interactions of events to arrive at a simple end result; for example, starting with the sun coming up and ending up after thirteen or fourteen intervening steps with a big boot kicking somebody out of bed.

Well, they have never found any of the dissolved hydrogen cold fusion of the Pons type, but I can see steady progress on fusion with engineering break even already done they are not making the first test bed for trying to reach real world break and more.

Cold fusion is also an intriguing technology that has received at lot of hype as well as bad press . It seems divided into various camps and research efforts appears to be splintered and certainly don't have as much funding and lobbyists as Tokamak fusion .

It certainly would be a major savings in cost and support if a breakthrough occured. It would also enable smaller versions to residential levels, for heating and power generation .

I have to be an optomist and hope that cold fusion has a chance and look forward to hearing more about current developments.

Something concrete rather than fictionnal (1.e. Zero-Point energy balderdash) like one might believe by watching Star Gate Atlantis.

Laserlover

If only they had found one valid instance of it working, that would make fools of all the theorists.

I had a thought that if you saturated palladium wire with the right deuterium/tritium mixture and then centered it in a TNT shell and then detonated it you would get a degree of compression that might take it over the hill, but then I read about the T and P regime needed and I realized that even that would or do it.

Aurizon:

I read articles where cold fusion is actually being created. I think the guys who are running their houses on home made cold fusion generators down in the cellar are using helical coils to generate a magnetic field around used-up catalytic rods with adsorbed elements plating their surfaces. I'm not certain about this, but as the adsorbed elements and the surface of the catalyst receive the magnetic influence, the adsorbed material fuses with the catalytic elements to form chemical bond combinations in the otherwise impervious surface of the catalyst with the otherwise disinterested adsorption, such as deuterium oxide, etc. The energy released by e.g. the sudden oxidation (or other chemical change, depending upon the adsorbed element and the catalyst being used) is greater than the energy required to power the coil, deposit the adsorption, etc., and is somehow directly taken off and utilized as a power source.

I'm really sketchy on this, but the idea is that the fusion occurs in normal ambient temperatures and releases useful energy. No bottles, special gas atmospheric conditions, or super heat; and the used up material is not radioactive and can be re-refined or recycled. (Probably at the expense of the energy that was released in the first place.)

They were experiencing inconsistencies in the production of power, which they blamed on the impurity of some of the catalytic materials they were using. It seems that the purer the catalyst, the more certain the outcome: electricity generation.

Mark

Mark:

I wish that cold fusion were true as I believe most of us do. But what you describe sounds more like some type of battery reaction, not a nuclear fusion reaction. Any idea where the magnetic field comes into the picture? What are the catalytic rods?

This post is not intended to throw doubt on possibilities for cold fusion, but it really needs to be fusion in the nuclear sense to be viable. Otherwise, it appears like a battery (primary cell). Comments are most welcome.

Bernie Katz

Bernie

The response to your request for more info was too large for this thread, so I put it on a website for you and anyone else who's curious about cold fusion and its workings. The info comes from my files.

www.coldfusioninfo.wetpaint.com

There are a few very good informational links and an article re the 'bunk vs fact' controversy.

(Wetpaint.com is a free website design & hosting facility that I've enjoyed using in the past.)

I'm not 100% certain about this; but although I've locked the original page on the website to prevent editing attempts, you may be able to add your own pages to this website and be alerted as to when others have made additions. Any problem, contact me & I'll try to make that possible.

Mark

Mark:

Thanks for the link. I'll take a look, but the site is down at the moment.

Bernie Katz